David Weisburd

Maybe double click on what that looks like and what you're trying to ascertain in these meetings.

Scott Wilson at St.

Louis WashU is famous for this.

He would meet with his manager and he would actually ask a very simple question, which is, what is your biggest position and are you at your concentration limit?

And for those that were at their concentration limit, he would ask to co-invest more.

So the idea was that if you have a concentration limit of 20 and you're 20%, you're actually underweighted.

You still have to manage your portfolio and sometimes you have constraints as a manager.

So he would look to literally co-invest into the manager's best ideas.

He saw the signal that their best managers were actually underweight in their best ideas.

When you meet with a manager and they present you an opportunity, how do you know that it's something that you should double click on?

Curious, you mentioned asymmetry.

So on one end, that's potential 10X.

On the other end, oftentimes it's a zero.

How do you think about that?

Do you have to present the zeros to the investment committee?

Are you presenting on a net basis the symmetry on the downside?

Is that something that you care a lot about or is it just part of the game?

Tying back to what we talked about earlier, you said that you went away from heavy on venture to more lower middle market in simple ways.

They have somewhat similar returns, but venture once in a while will have this huge outperformance, will have this 10X fund, which is much more rare these days.

What are the second order effects of having a more stable portfolio and focusing more on lower middle market versus venture?